It’s pretty typical fare for the types of “health” articles Yahoo features, providing a lot of sciencey sounding, but unsupported recommendations, appeals to ancient wisdom, and repeating one or more already debunked medical myths.

The first particular I’ll address is the first “secret”

1. A juice to brighten your eyesight
An age-old Chinese folk remedy for clearing the vision is a blended juice made from celery, peppermint, and Chinese parsley. Research has caught up with this wisdom, and we now know that luteolin, an antioxidant bioflavonoid found in these three ingredients, has been found to provide the best protection of cell DNA from radiation. Some evidence shows that luteolin helps protect the eye from UV radiation damage, as well as from glycation, a process in which sticky sugar molecules bind up protein, potentially damaging the retina. Luteolin also promotes healthy blood sugar levels and regulates insulin sensitivity. Blend together celery, peppermint, and Chinese parsley in a blender with a little water or a juicer. Drink this fresh juice daily to see well into the future!

First, I’ll just address that the article provides no references to support the claims made in any way; we’re just supposed to accept that the author speaks with authority. It may be unrealistic to expect support references, but at least a passing mention of the source of the research and evidence would be nice, as in “research at XYZ University in 2001 showed….”.

Next, notice how the article doesn’t say that these ingredients have been “shown to provide the best protection of cell DNA from radiation”, “protect the eye from UV radiation damage, as well as from glycation”, or “promotes healthy blood sugar levels and regulates insulin sensitivity”, only that substances found in these ingredients have. In my experience, this is fairly typical of mainstream media “health reporting” in general.

The reasoning goes something like this: Item A has been shown to have health benefit Y. Item B contains item A, therefore item B has health beneift Y. This is fallacious logic. There are numerous reasons why item B may not have health benefit Y. Item B may or may not contain sufficient amount of item A, it may contain item A in a different (less effective or ineffective) form, or item B may contain other ingredients that offset or nullify the beneficial effects of item A.

If item A has been shown to have health benefit Y, and item B contains item A, we can say there is reason to investigate item B to see if it too has benefit Y, but that’s about it.

Item 2 “Eat for Eye Health” is essentially a bunch of unsupported claims which may or may not be true. I don’t feel like taking the time to research them to see if they hold any merit (It’s my first real Deconstruction, give me a break).

Item 4, “Eye exercises to fight floaters“: I spent a few minutes searching the internet, and found no scientific support for these claims. I did find info on the Mayo Clinic’s site describing the causes and treatment of floaters, but strangely never found any of these exercise listed. Wearing of UV-protective sunglasses is something my eye doctors have been recommending for decades, so I’m OK with that advice.

Item 5, “Instant eye remedies“: is mostly unproven, scienced up herbal remedies, but the recommendation for eye exams is reasonable.

Dr Mao’s website states that he “is a doctor of Chinese medicine and an authority in the field of Anti-Aging Medicine” and “has two doctorate degrees and wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on nutrition” It does not say what institutions he has his doctorates from, and it although it says his dissertation was on nutrition, it does not state that either of his degrees are in nutrition. He is most clearly not an MD, and this is something which is not at all clear in the Yahoo article.

I get the feeling that people like Dr Mao really want us to actually use only 10% of our brains, and not think critically when consuming information.

One Response to “Deconstruction: 5 Secrets to Preserve Your Eyesight”

Bobsaid

Vitamin A (that you would get from the parsley) and sight are very much linked but, yeah the whole idea of their logic is rather flawed since they never really discuss absorption.

Mineral old for example will inhibit the absorption of the carotenes, but doesn’t effect the active vitamin. Plus, the amount needed to get to the 5,000 IU needed. Food sources will give you from 20 to 10,000 units per 100 g., depending on the food. Whole milk is a good source but parsley is a better source. So his menu, might get you to the 5,000 units you need but if your not deficient, taking more isn’t going to really help you. (Physiological and Pathological Chemistry – L Earle Arnow).

Without knowing if your deficient, the vitamin may do nothing for your sight. I guess you need to find out of your deficient first then some of his menu might be helpful since deficiency would include some atrophy of certain surfaces of the the eye. (same source).